Every one knows the acronym TULIP, but not everyone knows where this acronym comes from. The Canons of Dordt are among the most famous but unread deliverances of any Reformed Synod. The canons are more than five letters. The canons teach a pastoral doctrine of grace and provide a model for the stewardship of the Gospel.
The Canons (rules) of the Synod of Dordt were written after years of controversy within the Reformed churches in Europe and Britain. In the late sixteenth century the Reformed doctrines of sin, grace, faith, justification, atonement, perseverance, and assurance faced a growing resistance. At the same time, James Hermanson (c. 1559–1609), known to us as Jacob Arminius, was a student in the Genevan Academy where he showed promise and no obvious evidence of heterodoxy.
Questions about Arminius’ doctrine arose as early as 1590, but Jacob had married well and his patrons protected him. About 1594 he developed a new reading of Romans chapter 7 in which he argued that Paul could not be describing a regenerate person. By 1596, after studying Romans chapter 9, he concluded that inclusion in the covenant of grace is not determined solely by God’s sovereign decree. Instead, God has willed to accept those who seek acceptance with Him by faith. This was a clever move. He appeared to be defending justification by faith all the while redefining the doctrine of election and the definition of faith. As time passed, his views became more well known. Confessional pastors and theologians in the Netherlands and elsewhere began to sound the alarm. Dialogues were conducted and Arminius said the right things, leaving the orthodox uneasy but without hard evidence of error. Despite swirling doubts, the regents of the University of Leiden appointed Arminius to professor of theology. Almost immediately, Arminius was controversial. He was reported to teach that God elects those whom he foreknows would believe. He also raised questions about the Reformed doctrine of the covenant of works. In public, however, Arminius went out of his way to agree with his orthodox colleagues.
By 1605, however, confessional Reformed pastors were calling for discipline against Arminius and his growing band of followers (the Arminians). The orthodox called for a national synod to discipline the Arminians, but the politicians refused. Instead, leading Arminians in the government called for a synod to revise the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism to make them more amenable to Arminius’ views.
Arminius died in October 1609, and the controversy entered a new phase. The Arminians published a remonstrance against the Reformed churches in which they outlined five objections to Reformed doctrine. Some preliminary responses were drafted as early as 1611, but it was the Remonstrants who first gave us five points to which the Reformed churches would respond at the great Synod of Dordt.
The Synod of Dordt almost did not occur. Political forces within the government worked mightily to prevent a national synod to address the problem. The theological crisis threatened to break out into warfare. Prince Maurice of Nassau (1567–1625), who sympathized with the orthodox, called for a national synod. The Remonstrants responded by organizing riots in 1617. Maurice’s chief rival threatened war, but when Maurice arrived in Utrecht (an Arminian stronghold) in 1618 with battle-tested veterans, the opposition melted.
The greatest international Reformed synod convened in Dordrecht, on 13 November 1618. In attendance were delegations from across Europe and Britain. Forbidden by Louis XIII from attending, the French delegation was
notably absent.
In 1610 the Remonstrants proposed these five points: One: Election conditioned upon foreseen faith and obedience; Two: Universal atonement; Three: Regeneration enables sinners to do good toward salvation; Four: Resistible grace; Five: Believers may fall away.
Because the synod replied to the Five Articles of the Remonstrants point by point, the order of the Canons is not actually TULIP. The first head of doctrine concerned divine election and reprobation. With the apostle Paul, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, the synod ruled that, by virtue of Adam’s fall, we are so profoundly sinful that we deserve only condemnation and are able to do nothing to prepare for grace or even to cooperate with it toward our justification (1.1). The instrument of justification is a faith that embraces Christ alone for salvation (1.2–4). Only the elect come to faith (1.5–6). Election in Christ is God’s unchangeable and eternal choice of a certain number of persons to salvation unconditioned by anything in the sinner (1.7–11). Believers find comfort in this truth since only the elect believe, and their faith is evidence of God’s grace toward them. The elect will, in different ways, attain assurance of God’s grace toward them, “not by inquisitively prying into the secret and deep things of God,” but by believing the Gospel and paying attention to “the infallible fruits of election” (1.12). Those who doubt should “nevertheless make use of the means which God has appointed for working these graces in us” (1.16).
The second head of doctrine teaches that Christ’s death did not simply make salvation available for those who will, but rather our Savior actually secured the salvation of all His people. His death satisfied God’s justice for all the elect (2.1–2). Christ’s death is of infinite worth, but intended to satisfy God’s wrath for the elect. Therefore, the promise of the Gospel is that “whosoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have eternal life” (2.5). Contrary to the caricature of Calvinism, the synod said that, by His death, Christ redeemed “out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given to Him by the Father” (2.8).
The third and fourth heads of doctrine were combined to articulate the Reformed doctrine of sin and regeneration. Though we were created good and upright, we freely chose sin and with it death (3/4.1). We are so corrupt by nature that we are incapable of life or free choice apart from “the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit” (3/4.3). The natural knowledge and law of God only condemns us (3/4.4–5). Only God the Spirit “through the word or ministry of reconciliation” raises His elect to life (3/4.6). We believe because God has made us alive (and not the reverse), but the Spirit makes us alive by working through the administration of the Word; the external proclamation of the Gospel is sincere and the Gospel promise sincere (3/4.8, 11, 17). Those who refuse the Gospel are responsible for their choices, and the regeneration of the elect must be credited only to God’s sovereign grace (3/4.10, 12). God’s sovereignty does not make us “stocks and blocks” because the Spirit works through the Word. It “spiritually quickens, heals, corrects, and at the same time sweetly and powerfully bends it, that where carnal rebellion and resistance formerly prevailed” (3/4.16).
The fifth head defended the perseverance of the saints. Those to whom He gives the gift of faith, whom He “regenerates by the Holy Spirit, he also delivers from the dominion and slavery of sin” (5.1). Our ongoing struggle with sin gives us reason to humble ourselves and to seek heaven (5.2). Left to ourselves, we would fall away, but grace “mercifully confirms and powerfully preserves” us “even to the end” (5.3). Sometimes believers, such as David, fall into grievous sin and lose the sense of God’s favor, but God preserves them (5.4–5). God never allows His people “to proceed so far as to lose the grace of adoption” (5.6). Christ “certainly and effectually renews” His people “to repentance, to a sincere and godly sorrow for their sins” (5.7). The Spirit grants assurance to His people not, however, “by any peculiar revelation,” but rather it “springs from faith in God’s promises” (5.10). Assurance of grace does not produce immorality among Christians. Rather, “it renders them much more careful and concerned to continue in the ways of the Lord” (5.13). As the Spirit makes us alive through the preaching of the Gospel, He strengthens our faith and assurance through the sacraments (5.14).
The Canons of Dordt represent a remarkable consensus of conviction among the Reformed churches on essential doctrines. Indeed, the very Reformation was at stake. If God’s favor is conditioned upon anything in us, then we are lost because we are dead in sin. If the Gospel is reconfigured to include our obedience, then it is no longer the Gospel. If atonement is merely hypothetical, if the elect can fall away, then grace is no longer grace.
The synod’s response was careful, pastoral, and firm. The synod concluded that it does not help piety or assurance to make our salvation depend on anything in us. The Gospel is Christ for us. The Canons of Dordt are an inheritance to be treasured, but they are also to be used in our congregations, in our catechism classes, and as an example of how to respond to challenges.
This article by R. Scott Clark first appeared in Tabletalk Magazine in 2008 and is republished here by permission.
From Ligonier Ministries and R.C. Sproul. © Tabletalk magazine. Website: www.ligonier.org/tabletalk. Email: tabletalk@ligonier.org. Toll free: 1-800-435-4343.
Few are aware of the role of the English in the Synod of Dort. There were five English bishops who played a very leading role. Bishop Davenant’s proposal concerning a preparatory work of the law leading to regeneration was almost adopted by the Synod, as John Owen notes in his work on the Holy Spirit, volume three of the Goold edition of Owen’s works.
The Synod of Dort was truly an ecumenical synod. There were also German presbyters there from Heidelberg, and Helvetic ministers from Switzerland.
http://www.theopedia.com/Synod_of_Dordt
“This synod convened on November 13, 1618 consisting of 39 pastors and 18 ruling Elders from the Belgic churches, 5 professors from the universities of Holland, 19 delegates from the Reformed churches in Germany and Switzerland, and 5 professors and bishops from Great Britain. France was also invited but did not attend. The Synod was thus constituted of 86 voting members in all. There were 154 formal sessions and many side conferences held during the six months that the Synod met to consider these matters. The last session of the Synod was held on May 9, 1619.”
It was Prince Maurice who called the Synod of Dort, and Prince Maurice was the nephew of King James of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. It was King James who informed Maurice that Hugo Grotius and Oldenbarneveld were indeed plotting his murder and overthrow, and that Maurice needed to take immediate action to prevent a violent Arminian revolution and overthrow of the government. It was then that Prince Maurice pledged to defend the Reformed faith with his blood, and that he then called the Synod of Dort. Oldenbarneveled ended up being executed, and Hugo Grotius fled the country to avoid life imprisonment.
See Bob Godfrey’s chapter on the English delegation in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays… (1998).
Few are aware of the role of the English in the Synod of Dort. There were five English bishops who played a very leading role. Bishop Davenant’s proposal concerning a preparatory work of the law leading to regeneration was almost adopted by the Synod, as John Owen notes in his work on the Holy Spirit, volume three of the Goold edition of Owen’s works.
The Synod of Dort was truly an ecumenical synod. There were also German presbyters there from Heidelberg, and Helvetic ministers from Switzerland.
http://www.theopedia.com/Synod_of_Dordt
“This synod convened on November 13, 1618 consisting of 39 pastors and 18 ruling Elders from the Belgic churches, 5 professors from the universities of Holland, 19 delegates from the Reformed churches in Germany and Switzerland, and 5 professors and bishops from Great Britain. France was also invited but did not attend. The Synod was thus constituted of 86 voting members in all. There were 154 formal sessions and many side conferences held during the six months that the Synod met to consider these matters. The last session of the Synod was held on May 9, 1619.”
It was Prince Maurice who called the Synod of Dort, and Prince Maurice was the nephew of King James of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. It was King James who informed Maurice that Hugo Grotius and Oldenbarneveld were indeed plotting his murder and overthrow, and that Maurice needed to take immediate action to prevent a violent Arminian revolution and overthrow of the government. It was then that Prince Maurice pledged to defend the Reformed faith with his blood, and that he then called the Synod of Dort. Oldenbarneveld ended up being executed, and Hugo Grotius fled the country to avoid life imprisonment.
“Regeneration enables sinners to do good towards salvation”, It would seem some recent publications from ” Reformed” writers have forgotten that this was considered heretical , and now propagate this view.
Yes, e.g., the Federal Vision (and other forms of nomism) teach essentially the Remonstrant view under the heading of “covenant.”
http://heidelblog.net/2009/11/9-points-part-7-covenantal-arminianism-federal-vision/
Re the Federal Vision, it perverts our whole idea of covenant.
Dr. Clark, would you say the the FV people may have taken a bit from an earlier generation of poorly informed secular academics who presented covenantal theology as an “anodyne” to a supposedly “harsh Calvinism” (“Calvinism” being understood in the village polemics sense of predestination last, first, always, and only)?
The Spirit grants assurance to His people not, however, “by any peculiar revelation,” but rather it “springs from faith in God’s promises” (5.10). Assurance of grace does not produce immorality among Christians. Rather, “it renders them much more careful and concerned to continue in the ways of the Lord”
Fantastic!
Dr Clark, thank you for your response, I have been helped recently by your blogs, particularly by the series on nomism and antinomism. which has enabled me to understand more fully the role of law in the life of a Christian. But the reason why I commented on your posting was that for the ordinary lay Christian sometimes the discussions between theologians can be disturbing. I have been a Christian since 1981, and ” reformed” for most of the intervening years. But recently I doubted whether that was still the case. A very close friend of my wife and I, with whom we have shared many long theological discussions, has recently shared with us that ,after reading a book on antinomism, he now considers works/obedience to be contributory to his final salvation! . I have now reread the three forms of unity and the Westminster standards, and for the life of me cannot find that sort of teaching in there, but can find it in many modern authors. Have I misunderstood the reformed faith? thanks again William. England
Hi William,
It’s very important to get this right. Calvin said that the whole Christian faith turns on the question of justification. It’s the article of the standing or falling of the church.
We confess that we are not accepted with God because of anything wrought by the Spirit in us or done by us. Nevertheless, the Spirit does work in us and, by his grace, we do good works or produce fruit (or the Spirit produces fruit in us). That fruit or those good works are evidence of our free acceptance with God for Christ’s sake alone. Full stop. They are nothing but fruit or evidence of our free acceptance, which was earned for us by the perfect, righteous, whole (passive and active), meritorious obedience of Christ and imputed to us and received through faith that rest in and receives Christ.
Anyone who says that we are accepted by God for anything wrought in or done by us (both are taught by the Romanists) has abandoned the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. He has turned away from the gospel to a mess of moralistic, legalistic stew. The doctrine of acceptance with God (even) partly on the basis of sanctification or our obedience is the very thing Paul condemned in Galatians.
Here are two episodes of the Heidelcast on this question:
http://heidelblog.net/2013/10/heidelcast-46-conditions-and-the-covenant-of-grace-pt-1/
http://heidelblog.net/2013/11/heidelcast-conditions-and-the-covenant-of-grace-pt-2/
Stand firm William! Christ did not obey and die in order that we might do our part. No! He obeyed and died for helpless wretches who couldn’t and wouldn’t do any part. We obey, to the extent we do, by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in union and communion with Christ, out of gratitude and as evidence that we belong to our faithful Savior.
Dr. Scott Clark’s explanation here of the Canons of Dort is probably one of the most concise and precise ever written for our benefit. The emphasis on the primacy of the Gospel is also significant. One of the difficulties for contemporary semi-pelagians is the distinction between Christ’s work for us and outside of us, and the work his Spirit does in our hearts. It is the same issue basically settled in the Reformation. We are not justified by God’s work in our hearts, but by what he has accomplished in his Son Jesus Christ.
Thank you George.
Hi William,
I appreciate your post. Indeed, stand firm in Christ alone!
I am curious, what book was this that influenced your friends to believe, “… after reading a book on antinomism, he now considers works/obedience to be contributory to his final salvation!”?
Blessings,
Brad
Hi Brad, not sure I am allowed to say, but it was a book released in 2013 from a well known source, It may well be that my friend has not reflected its teachings accurately, if he has, then it would concern me more because the book was well received.
blessings to you too
William
Dear Brad,
Would you be able to give us an excerpt from the book that perhaps your friend may have misinterpreted?
Al Hembd
Hi Brad and Albert, I haven’t read the book, mainly because I have a book list that I’m trying to work through at the moment. My friends parting shot to my wife and I was, when asked ” surely you don’t mean that you add to the obedience of Christ with your own obedience”? His reply was ” yes for my final salvation ! Yes!.
Well as a lay person I may not understand some of the nuances of theological debate, but this was not my understanding of salvation. Many things had been said over previous months which had led me to believe he had come under some teaching which contradicted what we had believed together for more than 30 years.
He wrote to me via e-mail the next day to let me know that he had read the book you asked about. I read reviews on the book, which I found disturbing, maybe I am just confused I will let you judge.
quotes from the book are as follows:-
” Thus, good works are a consequent means of final salvation”.
” good works are not simply evidences of salvation as some say, but that they are also necessary for salvation ”
Contrast this with Luther,” whoever teaches that good works are indispensable unto salvation,” is a minister of the law, of sin , wrath, and of death.
or the second Helvetic confession ” we do not think we are saved by good works, and that they are so necessary for salvation that no one was ever saved without them. For we are saved by grace and the favour of Christ alone. Works necessarily proceed from faith. And salvation is improperly attributed to them,”
In the Belgic confession, “moreover, although we do good works, we never the less do not at all place any hope of salvation in them”.
Just to add a little more background to myself, as an ex Mormon the last thing I need to hear is that my final salvation is dependant on my works. My trust is in the finished work of Christ Alone.
William.
Dear William,
What I am wondering is it your friend has come under the influence of ‘Federal vision’ or ‘the new perspective on Paul’, which is being taught by N. T. Wright, and which found its way into Presbyterian circles in the U.S. through Norman Shepherd (who was dismissed from WTS/P).
Regretfully, ‘Federal Vision’ is persisting in some Presbyterian circles (not my Church!) because of the refusal of some to discipline this very serious error. Federal Vision – which denies the imputation of Christ’s active obedience to the believer, and which posits that the believer’s own obedience is his ‘active righteousness’ which constitutes part of his actual justification – is the error also of the Arminians. It was the error of Episcopius. It is one of the errors specifically refuted by the Canons of Dort. (I believe, under the second and third heads of doctrine.)
Find out more on the source of your friend’s new doctrine. It’s to be feared that it is quite dangerous.
Hold fast!
William,
Thank you for your very helpful and thoughtful reply. I’ve not yet purchased the book.
A quick search found one of the quotes you provided but the reviewer here does not necessarily attribute it as a direct quote:
http://theblog.founders.org/a-review-of-antinomianism-reformed-theologys-unwelcome-guest-by-mark-jones/
<>
Regardless, these views being popularized are detrimental to the comfort and assurance we are promised in the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. I will eventually purchase this book to become more aware of the dialogue.
Blessings,
Brad
William,
Thank you for your very helpful and thoughtful reply. I’ve not yet purchased the book.
A quick search found one of the quotes you provided but the reviewer here does not necessarily attribute it as a direct quote:
http://theblog.founders.org/a-review-of-antinomianism-reformed-theologys-unwelcome-guest-by-mark-jones/
From the reviewer: In chapter 5, “Good Works and Rewards,” Jones discusses the role of good works in the life of the believer. He argues that good works are not merely a way of life for the believer, but that they are the way to life, though good works are neither the ground nor means of justification. Justification is only by faith on the basis of Christ alone. Good works, therefore, do not give believers a title to eternal life, but they are a means of entering into the possession and experience of eternal life, which was purchased by Christ and His work alone. This means that good works are not simply evidences of salvation as some say, but that they are also necessary for salvation (see Mk 13:13; Rom 6:22; Gal 6:8-9; Heb 12:14). In Scripture and Reformed theology, each stage of salvation is a gift of God’s free grace, but God’s saving gifts come in a certain order: regeneration, conversion, justification, good works, and then glorification. Good works follow conversion, but they are also a means of glorification. Thus, good works are a consequent means of final salvation. Jones also provides a helpful discussion of the role of rewards as a motive in the Christian life. It’s not slavish for Christians to be motivated by the hope of future rewards in heaven.
Regardless, these views being popularized are detrimental to the comfort and assurance we are promised in the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. I will eventually purchase this book to become more aware of the dialogue.
Blessings,
Brad
Hi Brad, your quite the detective, But I will be most interested in your eventual findings. Blessings William
Thank you for your response Dr Clark, it has been following your blogs and postings that have enabled me to” stand firm” and to acknowledge that my faith is “reformed” . You have, I believe, spent some time in the UK, and will, therefore realise that there is very little in the way of reformed churches here. We are fortunate that the church we attend is a free evangelical church, but is led by two “reformed” Anglican ministers, who definitely understand the doctrines of grace. Matt our senior elder spent 12 months with Tim Keller. thank you again Dr Clark
Hi all, my friend has unbeknown to me been following this post and has assured me that I am very much mistaken about his views on works and salvation, I therefore unreservedly withdraw all assertions and apologise for any hurt I have caused. William
That’s great!
Blessings, Brad